:^-> 
% 


^  ' 


■'^■■■y.-* 


-^^  t/-^V' 


f:^....    K 


%^m-& 


!!4*-"?i 


■i^^ 


^ 


■;-^;^ 


I 


.«■  <^  * 


'».*' 


'  ^:.^ 


♦-         4?. 


T^ 


.r       ^* 


% 


^  ^il^l?^  '^ 


'-« A'  C 


V  /    2y 


^  \ 


I  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  | 
I  Princeton,  N.  J.    jfc'*'    "^ 


^ 


^      Bequeathed  by  the  Hon.  E.  BOUDINOT,  LT..D.     ;| 


-~--^^^; 


f  'use,    Division  . __,; [\ 


s/ 


Scc^ 


'6 


c 


^ 


/^^/x.(^^^-^^c^ 


mk 


SOLEMN    REASONS 


FOR 


DECLINING  TO  ADOPT 


THE 


BAPTIST  THEORY^  PRACTICE 

IN    A 

SERIES    OF   LETTERS 

TO    A 

BAPTIST  MINISTER. 


BY  NOAH^VORCESTER,  A.  M. 
Pastor  of  a  Church  in  Thornton. 


Kebuke  a  wise  man,  and  he  will  love  thee.  Solsmon. 

Nn  h<-  that  co:ni>>endc'iii  himsrlf  is  approved  ;  but  whom  the  Lord  commendeth.    S.'.  Piui, 

And  iie  spake  this  parable  unio  csrtjia,  who  iruitea  in  themseivts  that  tliey  were  rightrous.. 

and  despised  uthers.  St,  Lukv. 


FOURTH  EDFFION. 


PRINTED  BY  GEORGE  FORMA  N, 

No.    178,  Gr  EE  N  wicH- Stree  T, 
1809, 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


IT  IS  very  ivell  known,  that  the  denomination  call- 
ed Baptists,  have  claimed  for  themselves  the  honor  of 
being  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  to  the  exclusion  q/* 
all  others  ;  and  that  they  have  manifested  a  disposi- 
tion to  attribute  it  to  criminal  blindness,  and  selfish 
motives,  that  all  who  enjoy  the  light  of  the  gospel 
do  not  embrace  their  distinguishing  sentiments.  This 
being  the  case,  it  doubtless  behoves  every  one,  who  is 
capable  of  it,  seriously  to  inquire,  Why  he  is  not  a 
Baptist?  And  if,  on  ijiquiry,  any  one  finds  that  he 
has  other  reasons  than  those  alledged  against  him,  he 
has  doubtless  a  right ^o  exhibit  them,  in  his  own  vin- 
dication, and  for  the  consideration  of  others. 

The  writer  of  the  Jollowing  Letters  has  availed 
Kimself  of  this  right ;  and  he  hopes  that  what  he  has 
written  may  be  of  use  both  to  baptists  and  Pedo- 
baptists. 

In  writing  the  following  Letters,  the  name  Baptist 
has  been  generally  used  in  preference  to  Anti-Pedo- 
baptist;  7iot  as  being  more  correct  and  distinguish- 
ing, but  because  that  is  the  name  by  which  the  deno- 
mination generally  distinguish  themselves,  and  by 
ivhich  they  are  more  universally  known* 


Letters  to  a  Bajitist  Minister, 


LETTER  I. 

REV.    SIR, 

IN  the  discourse  I  lately  had  with  you,  some 
things  were  suggested,  which  have  led  me  to  serious 
mquiry.  I  cannot  doubt  that  some  persons  have  view- 
ed me  as  inclined  to  the  Baptist  sentiments,  excepting 
the  sentiment  of  close  communion.  Such  apprehen- 
sions probably  arose  from  the  following  things  ; — the 
readiness  which  I  have  discovered  in  receiving  Baptists 
into  the  church  of  which  I  have  had  the  care  ;  the  af- 
fectionate freedom  with  which  I  have  conversed  with 
such  Baptists  as  I  esteemed  real  christians  ;  my  ex- 
changing with  some  preachers  of  that  denomination  ; 
and  my  attempts  to  open  the  way  for  free  communion 
between  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists. 

Nor  can  I  say  that  I  never  had  any  doubts  in  my 
mind  as  to  the  truth  of  the  Pedobaptist  theory.  In 
my  younger  years,  I  had  some  struggle  in  my  mind. 
This  I  think  was  occasioned,  in  a  great  degree,  by  the 
overwhelming  confidence  with  which  the  Baptist 
preachers  and  writers  affirmed  their  sentiments.  But 
in  riper  years,  I  became  convinced  that  great  confi- 
dence in  asserting  an  opinion  is  no  evidence  of  the 
rectitude  of  the  sentiment,  nor  of  the  goodness  nor 
prudence  of  him  who  makes  use  of  this  art  to  gain 
proselytes. 

The  struggle  in  my  mind,  however,  had  probably  a 
salutary  effect,  in  softening  my  feelings  towards  the 
Baptists ;  and  in  leading  me  to  judge  favorably  of 
some  who  embraced  their  sentiments. 

But,  dear  Sir,  I  think  you  were  the  first  person  who 
ever  intimated  to  me  a  reason  why  I  did  not  go  over  to 
the  Baptist  ground  ;  at  least  the  first,  who  suggested 
the  same  reason,  viz.  "  That  I  feared  to  appear  in 
opposition  to  great  names." 


4 

This  suggestion  I  think  has  been  of  some  use  to 
me  ;  but  on  the  most  careful  examination  I  cannot 
find  that  what  you  suggested  is  the  reason,  nor  any 
reason  why  I  have  not  become  a  Baptist. 

But  I  am  free,  Sir,  to  confess  to  you,  that  there  are 
things  which  I  do  fear  when  I  contemplate  the  idea  of 
embracing  the  Baptist  theory  and  practice,  according 
to  the  prevailing  fashion  of  the  present  day.  And, 
wishing  that  my  freedom  may  give  you  no  offence,  I 
shall  take  the  liberty  to  state  to  you,  \n  some  following 
letters,  the  grounds  of  my  fears.  It  is  indeed  a  deli- 
cate task  w^hich  I  have  proposed  for  myself;  and  it  re- 
quires, perhaps,  more  candor,  wisdom,  and  prudence, 
than  I  possess,  to  execute  it  in  a  suitable  manner.  But 
I  hope,  Sir,  that  I  shall  not,  in  any  instance,  lose  sight 
of  my  accountability  to  him  who  searcheth  the  heart. 
—  According  to  my  views  of  duty,  I  shall  use  plain- 
iiess  of  speech  ;  but  I  mean  to  avoid  railing  accusation. 
Some  thmgs  which  I  view  as  of  a  reprehensible  nature, 
that  have  appeared  in  many  of  your  denomination,  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  notice  ;  but  I  hope  to  notice 
them  m  such  a  manner  that  I  shall  have  no  occasion  to 
tremble  at  the  thought  of  meeting  a  Baptist  at  the  bar 
bf  God.  And  I  hope.  Sir,  that  you  will  read  with  a 
disposition  to  disapprove  of  evil,  whether  it  be  found 
in  yourself,  or  in  any  jof  the  brethren  of  your  denomi- 
nation. Your's,  8^c. 


LETTER  11. 

REV.     SIR, 

ACCORDING  to  promise  I  proceed  to 
observe, 

1.  I  fear  to  take  ground  on  which  I  must  meet  with 
serious  questions,  arguments,  and  objections,  which  I 
cannot  ansv/er  otherwise  than  by  disgusting  quibbles, 
cants,  or  jeers,  or  insulting  exclamations. 

Serious  questions,  arguments  and  objections,  I  fore- 
see that  I  must  meet,  if  I  become  a  Baptist.  With 
respect  to  many  of  which,  I  can  foresee  no  way  to  an- 
swer or  obviate  them  by  fair  reasoning.   And  from  the 


5 
free  use  which  is  made  of  quibbles,  jeers  and  excla- 
mations, by  some  writers  and  speakers  on  }'our  side  of 
the  question,  I  suspect  that  they  discover,  in  many  in- 
stances, no  rational  mode  of  defence.  I  think  that  no 
man  of  sense,  and  due  consideration,  would  make  use 
of  the  weapons  I  have  named,  in  such  a  serious  cause, 
but  from  dire  necessity.  To  think  of  being  reduced 
to  such  necessity,  fills  my  mind  with  dread.  I  there- 
fore fear  to  become  a  Baptist. 

I  will  not.  Sir,  pretend  that  there  are  no  instances  in 
which  Pedobaptist  writers  and  speakers  have  been 
guilty  of  using  such  weapons  as  those  to  which  I  have 
objected  ;  but  this.  Sir,  I  think  I  ought  to'^ay,  that  the 
use  of  such  things  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  a  Christian 
Miaister,  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and 
disgusting  to  persons  of  a  humble  and  judicious  mind, 

Your's,  &:c. 


LETTER  III. 

REV,    SIR, 

ONE  ground  of  fear  has  already  been  stated: 
I  will  now  observe, 

2.  That  \fear  to  take  ground  on  which  I  must  make 
use  of  dogmatical  assertion  instead  of  argument,  or 
urge  arguments  which  I  know  are  fallacious  and  in- 
conclusive. 

I  am  sensible  that,  with  many  people,  confident  as- 
sertions have  more  weight  than  conclusive  arguments  ; 
and  this  circumstance  appears  to  be  perfectly  under- 
stood, and  greatly  relied  on,  by  too  many  Baptist  wri- 
ters and  speakers.  But  I  have.  Sir,  either  a  natural  or 
habitual  aversion  to  such  a  m^ethod  of  proving  a  point. 
And  to  make  use  of  arguments  which  I  know  are  fal- 
lacious and  inconclusive,  seems  to  me  to  border  hard 
on  dishonesty. 

If  I  should  become  a  Baptist,  I  know  not  of  but  two 
sources  of  argument,  of  which  I  could  make  use,  to 
disprove  the  proprietv  of  infant  baptism.  And  my 
conscience  tells  me,  that  arguments  from  either  of 
those  sources  must  be  fallacious  and  inconclusive. 


6 

What  Is  called  the  wmit  of  explicit  warrant,  is  one 
of  the  grounds  1  must  take.  By  explicit  warrant  is 
meant  a  plain  or  express  precept^  or  an  unquestionable 
example.  But  how  could  I  honestly  reason  from  this 
ground  against  infant  baptism,  while  I  know  that  a 
point  may  be  as  clearly  and  fully  proved  by  fair  deduc- 
tions and  inferences,  from  Scripture  premises,  as  by 
what  is  called  explicit  warrant  ? 

Besides,  if  I  deny  infant  baptism  for  the  want  of  ex- 
plicit warrant,  I  must  also,  to  be  consistent  with  my- 
self, deny  the  right  of  female  communion  at  the  Lord's 
table;  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to 
tlie  first  day-cf  the  week  ;  the  propriety  of  administer- 
ing the  Lord's  supper  in  a  public  manner  before  the 
world  ;  the  propriety  of  audible  and  public  prayer,  be- 
fore and  after  sermon,  or  before  and  after  baptism.  I 
must  also  deny  the  right  of  any  ordinary  Pastor  or  El- 
der of  a  particular  church  to  administer  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  ;  and  the  propriety  of  continuing  water  bap- 
tism in  the  church  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles. — 
Moreover,  I  must  deny  the  right  of  any  particular  per- 
son, whether  Baptist  or  Pedobaptist,  to  officiate  as  a 
Gospel  Minister. 

Female  communion,  and  the  change  of  Sabbath,  have 
often,  and  justly,  been  urged  as  standing  on  the  same 
ground,  as  to  the  mode  of  proof,  with  infant  baptism. 
Now,  Sir,  I  will  seriously  ask  you,  whether  all  the 
other  things,  which  have  been  enumerated,  do  not  al- 
so, as  to  the  mode  of  proof ,  stand  on  the  same  ground  ? 
Where  will  you  find  express  precept,  or  unquestiona- 
ble example,  for  administering  the  Lord's  supper  in  a 
public  manner  ;  or  for  the  practice  of  public  and  audi- 
ble prayer  before  and  after  sermon,  or  before  and  after 
baptism  ?  Not  in  the  Bible,  it  m^ay  be  presumed. — 
Where  will  you  find  your  explicit  warrant  for  a  Pas- 
tor of  a  particular  church  to  administer  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  ?  And  where  is  your  explicit  warrant  for 
the  continuance  of  water  baptism  in  the  church  ?  The 
whole  support  of  water  baptism  in  the  church  at  the 
present  day,  results  precisely  from  the  sam^e  mode  of 
reasoning  which  we  adopt  iu  favor  of  infant  baptism, 


7 

viz.  inferences  from  Scripture  premises,  and  the  testi- 
monies contained  in  ecclesiastical  history. 

We  come  now  to  the  last  particular.  Permit  me. 
Sir,  seriously  to  request  of  you  to  produce  explicit 
■warrant,  from  the  Scriptures,  for  i/oiir  officiating  as  a 
gospel  minister.  Is  your  name  explicitly  written,  or 
your  character  unquestionably  described  in  the  Bible 
as  an  authorized  minister  of  Christ  ?  Or  have  you  even 
fiilly  and  unquestionably  the  qualifications  which  are 
explicitly  required  of  a  Bishop,  Elder,  or  Pastor  ? 

Suppose  a  man  should  doubt  the  propriety  of  hear- 
ing you  preach,  and  should  demand  of  you  a  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  authorizing  you  to  preach  the  gospel; 
what  method  would  you  adopt  to  satisfy  his  mind  ?  To 
be  consistent  with  yourself,  in  denying  infant  baptism, 
would  you  not  be  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  you  have 
no  warrant  to  preach  the  gospel  ? 

Now,  Sir,  is  it  not  extraordinary  that  Ministers  of 
your  denomination  should  so  conjideiitly  deny,  reject, 
and  even  ridicule  infant  baptism,  while  every  thing 
you  do,  as  Baptist  Ministers,  is  ivholly  unauthorized 
by  any  such  warrant  as  you  demand,  in  support  of  in- 
fant baptism  ?  And  while  you  cannot  support  one  arti- 
cle of  your  own  practice,  in  respect  to  positive  institu- 
tions, by  any  other  mode  of  reasoning  than  that  which 
you  ridicule,  when  adopted  in  favor  of  baptizing  the 
infant  seed  of  believers  ?  Is  it  not,  Sir,  still  jnore  ex- 
traordinary that,  while  the  whole  of  your  own  practice 
rests  on  this  mode  of  reasoning,  you  should  feel  your- 
selves authorized  to  connect  with  "  AntichrisV^  the 
wlx)le  Pedobaptist  church  in  all  ages  ? 

Your's,  &c. 


LETTER    IV. 

REV.    SIR, 

IN  my  last  I  mentioned  the  first  source  of 
argument  against  infant  baptism ;  and  endeavored  to 
show  its  fallacy  and  inconclusiveness.  For  a  second 
source  of  argument  I  should  have  to  bring  into  view 
several  passages  of  Scripture,   from  which  it  appears 


that  believers  were  baptized,  and  that  of  adults,  a  pro- 
fession oi  faith  was  requnxd  as  a  prerequisite  to  bap- 
tism ;  and  from  such  premises  I  should  have  to  infer 
that  infants  were  not  baptized.  But  must  I  not  act 
a  dishonest  part  to  draw  such  a  conclusion  when  my 
conscience  assures  me  that  no  such  thing  is  implied  in 
the  premises  ?  To  argue  simply  from  such  passages 
of  Scripture,  I  might  as  well  infer  that,  in  the  Apostle's 
days,  believers  had  no  children,  as  to  infer  that  their 
children  were  not  baptized.  For  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  is  implied  in  the  premises. 

I  will  now  state  a  case  which  may  illustrate  the  falla- 
cy of  both  the  arguments  against  infant  baptism.  Sup- 
pose I  had  imbibed  a  prejudice  against  the  practice  of 
having  little  children  attend  public  -worship.  I  advance 
the  sentiment  that  no  children  under  twelve  years  of 
age  should  appear  in  the  house  of  God,  excepting 
when  brought  in  infancy  to  be  presented  to  the  Lord.* 

In  support  of  my  opinion  I  deny  that  there  is  any 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  or  explicit  warrant  for  the  prac- 
tice in  the  gospel  state  of  the  church.  That  there  is 
no  express  precept  nor  unquestionable  example.  And, 
hence,  the  practice  must  be  unlawful  under  the  gos- 
pel dispensation. 

For  further  proof  I  introduce  the  second  source  of 
argument,  and  exhibit  those  passages  of  Scripture 
which  plainly  show  that  adult  persons  were  required  to 
attend,  and  the  examples  of  their  attendance  :  And 
hence  infer  that  children  did  not  attend  in  the  Apostles' 
days  ; — that  it  was  not  the  design  of  Christ  that  they 
should  attend,  and  that  the  practice  of  their  attend^ice 
in  the  present  age  is  supported  only  by  tradition,  and 
is  unauthorized,    unlawful  and  wicked.      Would  not 

•  When  Jesus  was  liuelve  yean  old,  he>  ent  with  liispa-entsro  JeiusaU-m,  to  at  end  the 
passover,  after  the  cuUom  of  iht  feast.  These  Vmds.  fi^r  the  cunntn  of  ilie  femt,  have 
prbibly  reference  to  the  dee  at  which  chil.ircn  fir-;!  accompanied  their  p»i-entj  to  tlie  feast 
of  the  passover.     Tiiismay  appear  by  reading  ,f  o  »crsfs  in  connection  : 

"  Now  h;s  parents  went  to  Jerusalem  every  year  ai  ihe  feast  r>f  the  pnseover. 

"  And  wlieii  he  was  twelve  years  old,  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  uf<er  the  cuHom  of 
tht  fiait." 

Upon  the  'ast  verse,  Mr.  Ponl'r  Continintors  make  tlii'  uh'-.eri.ation  :  "  It  re  snjj  by  'hose 
learned  in  the  Jewish  writings,  that  till  a  child  \v«  »f  that  age,  he  was  not  obligeil,  l>>  th: 
law,  to  £0,"  t!ia:  U  i«  the  pasiaver- 


9 
xri any  children  under  twelve  years  of  age  be  able  to  see 
the  weakness  and  fallacy  of  such  reasoning  ?  How, 
then,  does  it  come  to  pass  that  men  of  the  first  abilities 
among  the  Biiptists,  will  urge  such  arguments  as  con- 
clusive against  infant  baptism  ?*' 

Should  I  become  a  Baptist,  while  I  should  have 
nothing  to  urge  against  infant  baptism  but  such  weak 
and  inconclusive  arguments,  in  opposition  to  these  I 
should  have  to  meet  a  connected  chain  of  conclusive 
reasonings,  which  I  foresee  no  possible  way  to  break 
or  to  invalidate. 

From  the  sacred  Scriptures  it  would  be  clearly  pro- 
ved, that  in  the  gracious  covenant  which  God  made 
with  i\.braham,  and  under  which  the  church  was  form- 
ed in  his  family,  and  by  which  he  was  constituted  the 
father  of  all  that  believe,  the  all-sufficient  God  en- 
gaged to  be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  seed  : 

That  as  a  "  ^ea/ of  the.  righteousness  of  faith,"  and  a 
*'  token  of  the  covenant,"  circumcision  was  instituted  ; 

That  as  the  promise  was  to  him  and  his  seed,  so 
both  he  and  his  seed  were  commanded  to  be  circum- 
cised : 

That  the  blessing  of  Abraham  has  come  on  the  Gen- 
tiles— that  believing  Gentiles  are  heirs  of  the  promise, 

'  •  You  will  be  plea5ed.  Sir,  to  observe,  thzt  public  ■wonhifi.  as  really  as  idpfrjm,  is  a  rfiu/ne 
and  poiilivt  imtitution  ;  and  the  dajgerof  dev-iaring  fruni  tlie  divine  wan  ant,  is  as  great  in 
the  former  cse  is  in  t.ie  latter.  And  now,  Sir,  I  wish  to  a  dress  sjme  serious  q  lesciop.s, 
not  to  the  ^aniens  of  the  multituic,  but  to  your  oiuB  cor.iiier.ee.  Oj  the  supposition  ihata 
person  had  adopted  this  sentiment,  tluit  lae  h:ive  ni  lu  rniat  from  Scripture  for  a  cHilJ  ta 
attend  public  -ivonhip  bttiuecn  one  a-.J  ;welve  yean  of  age  ;  might  he  not  ajupt  the  whole 
course  of  your  rtJioning,  tteclam nion  jn'i  ridicule,  against  infant  biptiiin,  and  apply  it  in 
support  of  his  new  theory?  The  two  arguments  have  already  been  coiTsidered,  Might  lie 
fiot,  also,  urge  the  example  of  the  blesssd  Jesus,  and  dwell  upon  this  topic  in  a  very  moving 
manner  ?  M'ght  he  not  go  into  the  same  course  of 'Jehtment,  frighful,  and  censorioui  decla- 
mation, which  you  ailopc ;  a^id  with  equal  propriety  apply  your  favaritt  lexH  to  tiighteii 
parents  from  the  practice  of  taking  their  children  with  them  to  the  house  of  public  wor- 
sliip  .'  Such  as  the  following  :  ''Teaching  them  to  ubitrve  all  thing:  ivliattaever  I  h.i'je 
comnuitidiii  you  "  "  What  thing  soever  1  command  you,  (bscrve  to  do  it :  ihuu  shaltnoc 
ad/i  thereto,  nor  dimtJiisft  fn;m  it."  "  Toob»y  is  better  than  sicriSce,  and  to  hearken  thaa 
the  fat  of  rami."  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments."  "  In  vain  do  ye  worship 
me,  teaching  for  doctrines,  tlie  commandments  of  men."  "  Who  hath  requited  tliisatyour 
hands  .'"  With  as  much  prupriety.  Sir,  as  you  apply  the  last  words,  might  not  such  a  teacher 
adopt  the  whole  verse,  with  a  little  comn.ent  ?  •'  When  ye  come  toa;>p?ai  betiire  me,  who 
liath  required  this  at  your  hands  te  tread  my  courts,"  with  your  an^wi/Z^ffJ  children  by  your 
side  ?  And  if  the  practice  oi'ridiculing  infant  baptism  were  not  too  afiominatle  to  be  describ- 
ed, I  might  ask  svhy  the  same  might  not  be  applied  in  the  case  before  us,  by  a^kiag  us  why  vye 
do  not  tnke  our  "  Liinbi  and  catvsi  3.\i(i yonns cattfi"  to  tlie houss uf  God,  improper  sutjists 
of  she  ordjnar.c;  of  public  worship  ? 

B 


10 

evnins  IstKu:  wtia — lluit  the  covenant  ol'  the  j^ospcl 
chiiiT.li  is  the  same  thiit  was  nuidc.  willi  Ahrahimi,  and 
the  promise  to  believers  the  sauie,  7  will  he  a  (iod  tb  • 
thee  and  to  tliij  need  after  tlwc. — That  bai)lism  signi- 
fies the  same  tiiliij^  vvhiel)  eireinneisioM  (lid,  viz.  the 
reuovalioii  of  the  lieart,  and  is  vlie  sid)slilnled  token  of 
the  same  covenant.  Aceordin}2;ly,  as  Abrahani  and. 
his  hons(  hold  wire  eirenmcisid,  so  llie  Apostles  bap- 
tized believe  rs  and  their  honseholds. 

In  support  of  these  ideas,  the  history  oC  the  ehureh 
Would  allord  evidence  that  infant  baptism  was  handid 
down  iVom  the  A|)ostles,  and  that  it  has  been  ^eiicrallt/ 
and  uninterruptedly  practised  in  the  chiirch,  trom  the 
days  of  the  Ajxistles  to  the  present  time.  From  siicli 
premises,  rational  conclusions  may  be  drawn  in  lavor 
nrinlant  baptism,  us  ])raetised  at  the  present  day.  I 
l;now,  howi  v(  r,  that  such  conclusions  may  be  den'iedf 
and  even  ndieuled  ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  they  niver  can 
be  refuted. 

With  respect  to  the  three  liouseholds  which  were 
l)aj)ti/.ed  by  the  Apostles,  1  am  willinpj  to  admit  that 
there  is  no  positive  evidence  that  in  either  ol"  them 
theic  were  little  children.  By  pcTsons  of  your  deno- 
mination, this  -want  ol"  positive  eviik  nee,  that  there 
were  children  in  those  households,  seems  to  be  consi- 
dered and  treated,  as  nmountin}j;  to  positive  evidence 
that  tlu;re  were  not.  Hut  it  ou|.';ht  to  be  understood, 
I'uit  there  is  no  positive  evidence  that  there  wcrv  ehil- 
(hen  in  thoiic  hf)useholds,  nor  that  there  were  not.  It 
is  but  supposition  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other. 
W  may  tlun  candidly  iiupiire  which  is  the  most  pro- 
fja/h'.'  supposition  "■!  Atcordinj;-  to  what  we  know  of 
hous  holds,  it  will  not,  I  think,  be  thou^;ht  extravd- 
t^ant,  for  a  j;-eneral  and  comparative  estimate,  to  say, 
that  there  are  f/iree  households  which  have  in  them  lit- 
tle children,  lo  o//f  that  has  none.  If,  therefore,  one 
household  only  had  been'  mentioned,  tlu-  supposition 
that  there  were  little  children  in  (fiat  household,  woid(f 
he  thretfdd  n\ore  probable  than  ihi-  supi)osition  that 
there  v^eri-  not.  ]\\\\  as  t/ircc  hoiischolds  are  men- 
tioned, and  as  three  times  three  arc  nine,  the  \)rol).Abil- 


u 

ity  is  Qs  tiinc  to  ouf,  tluil,  in  one  or  other  of  ihosc  liuusc: 
hold>s,  there  were  little  ehiUhxn. 

It  may  be  proper  to  acUl,  that  whether  there  tyc/r 
or  were  not  little  ehikhen  i\\  those  households,  it  i^ 
clear  to  my  mind,  IVoni  the  representations  in  scripture, 
that  a  household  was  baptized  upon  the  I'aiih  ol'  one 
person.  Your^,  Jkc. 

LKTTl'Ul  \'. 

UF.V.    SIR, 

SOME  may  suppose,  that  I  have  already 
said  more  than  was  needful  to  shew  the  fallacy  ol 
your  ari;un\ents  against  infant  baptism  ;  yet  1  have  i* 
desire  to  exhibit  an  examination  of  these  arguments  n\ 
another  point  of  view. 

You  object  to  our  practice  o['  infant  baptism,  on 
this  ground,  That  xva  have  no  explicit  warrant.  W  luth- 
cr  your  objeetioii  be  proper,  or  not,  dei)ends  entirely 
on  the  corrfctncss  or  incorrectness  of  this  principle,  viz. 
That  in  respect  to  positive  institutions,  e.vp/icit  war- 
rant is  vecessan/  io/usti/'//  our  practice. 

Now,  Sir,  let  it  l)e  observed,  that  with  respect  to 
baptism,  we  voluntarily  adopt  one  mode  of  practice, 
and  you  adopt  another.  In  our  mode  of  practice^ 
wc  baptize  the  beliei'er  and  his  infant  seed ;  in  your 
mode  of  practice,  you  baptize  the  believer  and  ex- 
chide  his  infant  seed.  Each  of  the  dillerent  uiodes 
of  practice  relates  to  w positive  institution.  Whv,  then, 
is  not  explicit  warrant  as  necessary  to  justify  i/onr 
practice  as  ours?  And  have  you,  Sir,  any  explicit 
warrant  for  that  part  of  your  practice  which  EXCLtTDES 
THK  INI- A  NT  s  I^  E  D  ?  Dois  the  burcwant  of  explicit 
warrant  for  <;///*  practice  amount  to  a  'J 'has  saith  the 
Lord  for  yours  ?  Or  have  you  a  whit  of  support  for 
tliis  part  of  your  own  practice  but  that  of  inferential 
proof  ? 

Moreover,  if  explicit  warrant  be  necessary  ^o  justify 
Avhut  we  do  respectini;-  positive  institutions,  I  think  it 
should  be  considered  as  necessary  to  Justify  what  we 
say.     Will  you   then,  Sir,  be  so   kind   us  to  produce 


12 
your  Thus  saith  the  Lord  for  saying  that  explicit  war- 
rant is  necessary  to  justify  all  we  do  respecting  posi-^ 
tive  institutions.^  Either  I  am  under  a  mibtake,  or  )  ou 
have  assumed,  aikl  taken  for  granted,  the  principle  on 
which  the  whole  weight  of  your  argument  rests.  Fiist 
prove  that  explicit  warrant  is  necessary,  and  I  will  then 
yield  to  the  force  of  your  argument.  But  this,  it  may 
be  presumed,  you  cannot  do  from  the  Bible,  either  by 
explicit  testimony  or  fair  deduction. 

Something  farther  may  yet  be  remarked,  which,  in 
my  view,  amounts  to  a  great  inconsistency  on  your 
part.  For  the  support  of  infant  baptism  we  depend  on 
implicit  warrant  and  inferential  prool .  This  you  re- 
ject, and  demand  a  Thus  saith  the  Lord^  or  explicit 
warrant.  Yet,  on  your  own  part,  you  depend  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  mode  of  reasoning  as  that  to  \\'hich 
you  object. 

In  your  second  argument  it  is  obvious,  at  first  view, 
that  you  depend  on  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  which 
we  adopt.  You  state  your  premises  from  Scripture, 
and  then  draw  your  inference  or  conclusion.  It  is  very 
true,  that  your  conclusion  is  not  implied  in  your  premi- 
ses ;  but  still  it  is  evident,  that  you  depend  on  the 
same  mode  of  reasoning  which  is  adopted  by  us. 

With  regard  to  your  frst  argument,  it  may  not  be 
so  obvious  to  all,  at  first  view,  that  in  this  you  depend 
on  inferential  proof  I  will  therefore  take  the  liberty 
to  reduce  the  argument  to  a  logical  form.  And  if  I 
mistake  not,  it  will  stand  thus — Explicit  warrant  is  ne- 
cessary to  ^zw/'i/z/  the  practice  of  infant  baptism :  but  we 
have  no  explicit  warrant  for  baptizing  infants  ;  there- 
fore the  practice  of  infant  baptism  cannot  be  justified. 

What  is  this.  Sir,  but  attempting  to  support  your 
theory  by  inferential  proof  ?  And  have  you.  Sir,  ob- 
tained an  exclusive  right  to  this  kind  of  proof,  that  you 
deny  it  to  Pedobaptists  ? 

I  will  now  attem.pt  clearly  to  state  my  views  of  the 
difference  between  your  reasoning  and  ours  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism. 

On  our  part  w'e  state  Scriptural  premises,  and  Qur 
conclusions  naturally  result  from  our  premises. 


13 

On  your  part,  in  your  second  ar^iment  you  have  fair 
Scriptural  premises  ;  but  still  there  is  thib  defect,  your 
£0?2c/usion  is  not  implied  in  your  premises.  In  your  se- 
cond argument,  your  conclusion  fairly  results  from 
your  premises,  but  there  is  this  infelicity  attending  the 
argument,  your  premises  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Mble. 

Is  it  not,  Sir,  very  remarkable,  that  while  you  would 
deny  us  the  privilege  of  supporting  infant  baptism  by 
inferential  proof  i\'Oxa  Scripture  premises,  you  should 
take  the  lil^erty  to  assume  a  principle  for  one  of  your 
premises  which  has  no  foundation  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
by  the  help  of  this  assumed  principle  draw  a  conclusion 
against  infant  baptism  ? 

If,  in  the  last  paragraph,  my  meaning  be  not  obvi- 
ous, I  will  endeavour  to  make  it  so  by  requesting  of 
you  Scriptural  ground  for  this  principle,  viz.  Explicit 
warrant  is  necessary  Xo  justijy  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism.  Let  this  principle  be  fairly  supported  from 
Scripture,  and  the  controversy  on  my  part  will  cease 
for  ever. 

Such,  Sir,  being  my  views  of  the  arguments  against 
and  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  can  you  wonder  that  I 
fear  to  change  my  ground  ?  Your's,  &,c. 


LETTER    VI. 


EEV.     SIR, 

MY  fear  to  take  ground  on  which  I  must 
make  use  of  fallacious  and  inconclusive  arguments, 
operates  against  my  becoming  even  an  opc^i  commu- 
nion Baptist.  But  when  I  contemplate  the  idea  of  be- 
coming a  close  co;?2?;2?/nion  Baptist,  u\)  feat's  are  greath" 
multiplied.     Hence  I  may  observe, 

3.  That  I  fear  to  take  ground  on  which  I  must  set 
at  nought,  as  heretical,  unauthorized,  and  sacrilegious 
proceedings,  my  own  solemn  ordination,  and  all  my 
administrations  of  divine  ordinances;  And  much  more, 
if  possible,  do  I  fear  to  do  the  same  by  the  ordinations 
and  administrations  of  all  the  pious  Pedobaptist 


u 

isters  of  all  a^es.    But  all  this  I  foresee  I  must  do,  if  I 
should  become  a  Baptist  of  the  popular  elass.     For      , 
what  less  than  this  could  be  implied  m  my  re-orCna- 
tt  and  in  my  withdrawing  from  the  fellowsh.p  of 

^'1trl"ground  on  which  I  must  say  and.<f. 
thinj  whTc  °wiU  imply  the  idea  that  for  many  centur.es 
Christ  had  no  church  in  this  world ;  or  m  other  words, 
th,7the  adorable  bridegroom  was  for  many  centu- 
is  *thoutX&  on  earth  ;  unless  I  should  adm.t  the 
horrrd  supposition  that,  during  thatper.od,  he  accept- 
ed  of  an  Antichnstmn  brtde.  ,    .     , 

According  to  Mr.  Merril,  "  not  so  much  as  asmgle 
branch  of  th!  church,  in  any  place  or  age  of  the  worid 
S  ever  adhered  to   infant  baptism ;"  and   "  mfant 

"tralU':^^?rDf Wfom  the  eleve-^  centu- 
ry tack  to  the  fourth,  he  was  "  not  able  to  find  one  m- 

*TLt:^TrDr.'^t"s\ero"i-y,  that  though  a 
Bapt  ^himself  h"  could  find  no  evide.jce  o  a  B  1«  s, 
,  ^  1  J  •««.  thf  snace  of  seven  nunarea  yearb. 
t.'^  if  Mr^Mirtl's  tTt^mony  is  worthy  of  cre<«t,  no 
Ana  II  ivir.  Anti-Pedobantist  church  is  a 

tuTch  rChdsT  -L  ofdbg  to  him.' he  whole  Pedo- 
Wit  cl  urch  t  "  Anticlnht:^  What  then,  S.r,  .s 
?he'  conchSon  which  results  from  the  testimony  of 
.r^wo  brethren  ?  Is  it  not  plainly  this,  that  so  learn- 
^r»  .^anasDr  Gill  could  find  no  evidence  that 
ChrLt  ^d  rci?urch  on  earth  during  a  period  of  seven 

^'^nty  itl'r  witnesses  might  be  produced,  as  credi- 
We  as  Dr  Gill,  to  extend  the  period  of  the  non-exis- 

Son      But  I  t«.  Sir,  to  «k.  »..  W"^  >  "1 
i„  ,  torn,.  Wo.  1  =W  «»  I""'''-     v„,.,,  ao. 


'1^ 
LETTER   VII. 

REV.    SIR, 

ACCORDING  to  promise  I  must  say, 

5.  I  solemnly  fear  to  become  a  public  reviler  of 
God's  gracious  covenant,  his  church,  and  people. 

That  gracious  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham, by  which  he  was  constituted  the  Father  of  all 
the?n  that  believe,  does,  in  my  view,  contain  all  the 
provision  which  God  has  ever  revealed  for  the  salvation 
either  of  Jews  or  Gentiles.  And  for  me  to  talk  or  to 
write  respecting  that  covenant,  as  some  of  your  deno- 
mination have  done,  would  border  hard  on  blasphemy. 

To  speak  in  the  degrading  manner  which  so??ie  have 
done,  of  the  ancient  church  and  Zion  of  God,  would 
in  me  be  abominable  slander.  And  to  denominate  the 
whole  Pedobaptist  church  from  the  days  of  the  Apos^ 
ties  to  the  present  time,  by  the  name  of  "  Antichrist ,'''* 
implies  such  a  degree  of  revilitig,  as  in  my  view  is  per- 
fectly inconsistent  with  the  christian  character. 

No  two  characters  or  objects  in  the  universe  arc 
more  perfectly  opposed  to  each  other, than  the  charac- 
ter of  Christ  and  the  character  of  Antichrist.  Light 
and  darkness,  heaven  and  hell,  the  character  of  Jeho- 
vah and  the  character  of  Belzebub,  are  no  more  oppos- 
ed to  each  other  than  the  characters  of  C/?mif  and  Am 
tichrist.  Therefore,  for  me  indiscriminately,  to  charge 
the  holy  Martyrs,  the  pious  Christians,  and  godly  Mi- 
fiisters  of  the  Pedobaptist  churches  in  all  ages,  as  be- 
ing the  members  and  Ministers  of  "  Antichrist,  'would 
imply  a  degree  of  reviling  which,  perhaps,  has  never 
been  surpassed  even  by  infidels. 

An  inspired  Apostle  has  classed  revilers  with  the 
most  vicious  characters,  and  has  assured  us,  that  they 
shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  May  I  not  then, 
Sir,  justly  fear  to  become  of  this  class  among  the 
Baptists. 

I  have.  Sir,  indeed,  been  an  advocate  for  open  com- 
munion with  your  denomination.  But  I  must  now 
ireely  and  solemnly  profess  to  you,  that  I  have  no  wish 


16 
in  my  heart  for  open  communion  with  any  man  or  class 
of  men  who  will,  in  such  a  manner,  revile  the  church 
and  people  of  God.  And  I  believe  it  to  be  a  solemn 
duty,  incumbent  on  all  Pedobaptist  Ministers  and 
churches,  to  show  their  disapprobation  of  such  conduct, 
by  discontinuing  all  tokens  of  Christian  fellowship  with 
such  as  are  known  to  revile  in  such  a  manner,  until 
they  shall  exhibit  evidence  of  repentance. 

I  wish  to  be  understood  that  I  do  not  recommend 
this  discontinuance  of  fellowship  respecting  all  who  arc 
Baptists.  Many  of  the  Baptists  I  have  no  doubt,  do, 
in  heart,  abhor  such  reviling,  and  grieve  to  see  that  it 
is  practised  by  any  of  their  professed  brethren.  But 
with  regard  to  those  who  must  be  supposed  to  know 
the  meaning  of  the  word  "•  Jntichrist,^\^nd  who,  for 
party  purposes  ,  and  as  a  term  ol'  reproach,  apply  it  in- 
discriminately to  all  Pedobaptists,  I  believe  it  to  be 
our  duty  to  withdraw  from  them  the  hand  of  fellow- 
ship, both  as  Ministers  and  as  Christians.  For  this 
mode  of  proceeding  I  think  we  have  unequivocal  and 
unquestionable  warrant,  1  Cor.  v.  11.  But  now  I  have 
written  unto  you  not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  who 
is  called  a  brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an 
idolater,  or  a  r  ailer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner, 
%vith  such  an  one,  no  not  to  eat. 

You,  Sir,  or  your  brethren  will,  perhaps,  plead,  that 
what  I  have  denominated  reviling,  is  a  correct  and  sys- 
tematic proceeding,  perfectly  consistent  with  your 
close  communion  sentiment  and  practice.  I  am  wil- 
ling. Sir,  to  admit,  that  your  calling  us  "  Antichrisf 
is  consistent  with  your  principle  and  practice  of  close 
commAUiion;  and  the  most  consistent  ground  which  I 
have  ever  seen  exhibited,  on  which  to  support  the  close 
communion  practice.  But  this  I  cannot  admit  as  an 
excuse  for  the  practice  of  reviling.  To  this  course  of 
reviling  the  great  body  of  the  friends  of  God,  I  con- 
ceive you  are  reduced  by  your  wish  to  support  your 
close  communion  practice.  But  the  conclusion  which 
naturally  results  from  this  view  of  the  m.attcr  is,  that 
your  close  communion  system  is  a  system  which  can- 
not be  carried  into  effect,  in  its  full  extent,  without  the 


17 

most  flagrant  violation  of  the  principles  of  moral  recti- 
tude. 

If  I  adopt  principles  which  will  justify  theft^  drunk- 
enness^ or  murder^  or  which  will  naturally  lead  me  to 
the  practice  of  such  wickedness,  am  I  to  be  excused 
from  blame  on  this  ground,  that  my  conduct  is  con- 
sistent with  the  principles  I  have  adopted  ?  No,  Sir, 
If  my  principles  are  such  as  yN'Xi  justify  wickedness,  or 
naturally  lead  to  the  practice  of  wickedness,  they  are 
such  as  ought  to  be  reprobated  and  renounced. 

Charity  compels  me,  however,  to  grant,  that  proba- 
bly many  of  the  Baptist  brethren  have  been  led  to 
adopt  the  practice  of  calling  us  "  Antichrist,"  by  the 
example  of  some  popular  leaders,  while  they  know  not 
the  meaning  of  the  term  ;  and  have  never  considered 
that  Antichrist  is  a  character  at  war  with  Christ.  For 
such  persons  I  am  willing  to  admit  an  apology.  But 
what  excuse  can  be  made  for  those  popular  leaders, 
who  profess  to  be  learned,  not  only  in  our  own  lan- 
guage, but  also  in  the  language  in  which  the  New 
Testament  was  originally  written  ? 

You  will,  perhaps,  farther  plead,  that  the  very  per^ 
sons  who  call  us  "  Antichrist,^''  do  also  call  us  Chris- 
tians, Very  true  ;  and  what  is  the  inference,  but  this, 
that  it  is  for  party  purposes,  and  iov  reproach,  that  they 
call  us  "  Antichrist  .^" 

But,  dear  Sir,  does  not  your  admired  Mr.  Merril, 
in  addition  to  what  I  have  quoted,  expressly  assert,  that 
"  Anti-Pedobaptists  have  always  denied  that  the  Pedo- 
baptist  church  is  the  true  Gospel  church,  and  have 
ever  considered  Pedobaptism  as  a  badge  of  Antichrist, 
if  not  her  essential  characteristic  ?" 

On  the  first  view  of  these  assertions,  I  had  some  doubts 
respecting  their  correctness.  I  was  not  perfectly  satis- 
fied that  you  had  always  carried  the  matter  to  such  a 
length  as  to  deny  our  being  the  ''true  Gospel  church," 
and  had  ever  considered  us  as  wearing  the  "  badge  of 
Antichrist,"  or  as  being  an  Antichristian  church.  And 
even  now,  I  am  sensible  that  many  things  have  been 
said  and  done  by  your  denomination  which  are  incon- 
sistent with  Mr,  MerriPs  assertions.     Yet  when  I  re- 

C 


18 
fleet  on  the  general  tenor  of  the  conduct  of  your  teach- 
ers towards  us,  the  majiner  in  which  they  have  attempt- 
ed to  degrade  and  supplant  our  settled  Ministers,  to 
break  up  our  churches  and  societies,  the  little  regard 
they  have  shown  to  our  feelings  and  to  our  solemn 
covenants^  together  with  their  close  communion  prac- 
tice, I  am  ready  to  believe  that  Mr.  Merril  will  be 
able  to  support  his  assertion,  that  you  "  have  always 
denied  that  the  Pedobaptist  church  is  the  true  Gospel 
church." 

But,  Sir,  I  must  profess  to  you,  that  I  am  astonished 
at  the  degree  of  arrogancy  and  censoriousness  implied 
in  the  ground  you  have  taken,  in  calling  us  "  Anti- 
christ," and  claiming  to  yourselves  the  honor  of  being 
exclusively  the  church  of  Christ.  This  censure  falls, 
not  ojily  on  Congregationalists ,  but  on  Episcopalians ^ 
Presbyterians,  and  a  variety  of  other  denominations. 

Now,  Sir,  suppose  that  this  land  should  at  once  be 
emptied  of  all  the  Ministers  and  professors  of  religion 
who  are  by  you  considered  as  belonging  to  *'  Anti- 
christ," how  small  a  portion  o{ piety,  religioti,  and  real 
worth  would  be  k  ft  in  the  land  ?  Is  it  not  to  be  fear- 
ed, that  scarcely  enough  w^ould  be  found  remaining  to 
save  the  land  from  the  fate  of  devoted  Jerusalem,  in  a 
prospect  of  v/hich  the  Redeemer  wept  ? 

Besides,  Sir,  how  empty  would  be  your  book-cases  of 
valuable  writings  on  divinity,  if  all  were  consumed 
which  have  been  written  by  those  Ministers  whom  you 
denounce  as  the  adherents  of  "  Antichrist  P'*  You 
have,  indeed,  a  few  writers  who  would  be  an  honor  to  any 
,  denomination  of  Christians  ;  and  we  esteem  them  highly 
for  what  they  have  written.  But  how  very  little.  Sir, 
has  been  produced  by  your  denomination  in  this  country , 
excepting  on  your  favorite  subjects,  baptism  and  close 
communion  ?  Are  not  the  writings  of  one  individual 
of  the  Pedobaptists,  the^r^^  President  Edwards, 
of  tenfold  more  worth  than  all  the  writings  of  your 
denomination,  in  this  country,  from  its  first  settlement 
to  the  present  day  ?  Yet,  this  godly  man,  with  myri- 
ads of  others,  must,  by  you,  be  traduced  as  the  adhc-^ 
rents  of  Antichrist,  the  grand  enemy  of  Christ. 


19 

Consider,  Sir,  what  a  cloud  of  distinguished  wit- 
nesses Christ  has  had  in  the  Pedobaptist  church.  How 
many  thousands,  -who  have  laid  down  their  lives  for  his 
sake  How  many  he  has  employed  as  champions  for 
the  truths  of  his  religion,  and  as  burning  and  shining 
lights  in  the  world.  And,  in  a  comparative  view,  con- 
sider how  sparingly  he  has  bestowed  such  distinguished 
fovors  and  honors  on  your  denomination. 

Is  it,  Sir,  to  be  believed,  that  Christ  has,  for  many 
centuries,  uniformly,  and  almost  universally,  made  use 
of  the  adherents  oi  ^'■Antichrist''''  tis  his  chief  itistru- 
ments  for  the  illustration  and  defonce  of  the  great  doc- 
trines of  his  gospel?  But  such,  Sir,  is  the  case,  if  your 
pretensions  are  well  founded.  Can  you  deny  that  a 
hundred  fold  more  has  been  done  by  the  Pedobaptist 
church,  for  the  'illustration  of  truth  and  the  defence  of 
the  Gospel,  than  has  ever  been  done  by  your  denomi- 
nation  ?  And  do  you  wish  it  to  be  understood,  that  the 
adherents  oi  Aiitirhristhaye  done  more  for  Christ  than 
has  been  done  by  his  exclusive  fr'iends  ?  Is  it,  Sir,  for 
the  honor  of  Christ  to  have  it  believed,  that  he  has 
been  so  in  love  with  "  Antichrist,  '  as  to  bestow  the 
greatest  share  of  his  distinguishing  favors  on  her  adhe- 
rents  and  supporters,  to  the  neglect  oihis  "  true  Gos- 
pel CHURCH  .^"     God  forbid  ! 

It  would,  I  think,  have  required  no  extraordinary 
share  of  prudence  and  modesty,  in  your  writers,  to  have 
waved  these  high  pretensions,  in  hope  of  a  period,  in 
which,  what  you  shall  have  done  for  Christ  would  bear 
a  better  comparison  with  what  has  been  done  by  those 
who  are  denounced  as  the  adherents  of  "  Antichrist.^^ 
And  docs  it  not  behove  you,  Sir,  solemnly  to  inquire, 
in  the  light  of  Scripture,  whether  our  adherence  to  in- 
fant baptism  agrees  better  with  the  character  and  spirit 
of'-''  Antichrist,"*  than  your  arrogant  and  censo- 
rious pretensions  ? 

Unless  I  shall  be  made  to  believe,  that,  in  God's  ac- 
count arrogancy  stands  for  humility,  and  censoriousness 
for  christian  candor  and  brotherly  love,  I  shall  ever  fear 
to  become  an  advocate  for  your  exclusive  claims. 

Your's,  &c. 


20 
LETTER    VIII. 

REV.    SIR, 

I  HAVE  still  farther  reasons  to  give  why  I 
cannot  be  a  Baptist — Therefore, 

6.  \fear  to  take  ground  on  which  the  course  of  my 
conduct  must  be  involved  in  self-contradiciion. 

Should  I  become  a  Baptist,  if  I  am  a  Christian,  it  is 
reasonable  to  expect,  that,  at  some  seasons,  the  feel- 
ings of  piety,  humility,  brotherly  love,  and  Christian 
tenderness,  would  predominate.  At  such  seasons,  I 
should  be  coiistrained  to  feel  and  converse  respecting 
many  of  the  Pedobaptists,  as  though  they  were  my  breth- 
ren in  the  Lord.  I  should  have  to  call  them  Christians, 
and  the  friends  of  God.  I  should  wish  to  associate 
with  them  as  such ;  and  should  wish  to  exchange  with 
pious  Ministers  of  the  Pedobaptist  denomination,  and 
to  hear  them  preach  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ. 
But  whtn party  affection  Viud  party  zeal  should  become 
predominant,  and  I  should  have  occasion  to  vindicate 
my  conduct  as  a  close  co7n?nuniomst^  then  1  should 
change  the  tone  of  my  conversation,  accuse  them  of 
being  -ivilfully  blind  respecting  the  order  of  Christ's 
house,  and  the  ordinances  of  his  kingdom.  By  giving 
liberty  to  my  tongue,  my  zeal  would  be  increased  and 
inflamed,  till  the  whole  Pedobaptist  church  would  be 
considered  as  belonging  to  "  Antichrist."^ — Thus  those, 
who  in  one  hour  would  be  considered  as  the  children  of 
God,  in  another  would  be  treated  as  the  children  of  the 
devil :  and  all  this  without  any  change  in  any  one  but 
7nyself.  This  gloomy  prospect.  Sir,  has  resulted  from 
reading  and  observation.  I  therefore  fear  to  be  a  Bap- 
tist. 

7.  I  fear  to  adopt  a  theory  by  which  I  should  be  led 
to  employ  my  time  and  talents  for  the  purpose  of  di- 
viding, or  breaking  up,  peaceable  societies  and  church- 
es ;  and  to  use  my  influence  in  prejudicing  the  minds 
of  people  against  godly  Ministers. 

I  very  well  know,  that  your  denomination  undertake 
to  support,  from  the  Scriptures,  the  propriety  of  their 
conduct  in  causing  divisions.    Nor  am  I  wholly  unac- 


21 
quainted  with  their  mode  of  reasoning  for   this   pur- 
pose, but  I  am  afraid  to  adopt  it. 

Christ,  in  foretelling  his  disciples  what  would  be  the 
consequence  of  his  coming,  by  reason  of  the  wickedness 
of  the  human  heart,  made  use  of  these  words,  "  Sup- 
pose ye,  that  lam  come  to  give  peace  on  earth ?  I  tell 
you  nay,  but  rather  divisions."  And  how  often  do  we 
hear  persons  of  your  denomination  quoting  this  text 
in  vindication  of  their  conduct,  as  though  Christ  had 
required  it  of  them  to  make  divisions  in  churches  and 
societies  ? — But  why,  Sir,  do  you  not  quote  the  paral- 
lel text  in  Matthew,  to  prove  that  it  is  lawful  for  you  to 
propagate  your  sentiments  by  the  point  of  the  sword  ? 
*'  Think  not,"  said  Christ,  *'  that  I  am  come  to  send 
peace  on  the  earth,  but  a  sword."  The  meaning  of  this 
text  is  probably  the  same  as  the  meaning  of  the  other. 
And  why  may  not  the  latter  text  be  urged  in  support 
of  the  method  which  Mahomet  took  to  propagate  his 
sentiments  with  as  much  propriety  as  your  brethren 
quote  the  former  in  support  of  their  practice  in  causing 
divisions  ? 

I  will  take  the  liberty.  Sir,  to  suggest  for  your  seri- 
ous consideration,  another  text  of  somewhat  similar 
import  with  those  which  have  been  mentioned.  Matt, 
xviii.  7,  "  Wo  unto  the  world  because  of  oftences  I 
for  it  must  needs  be  that  offences  come  ;  but  wo  to 
THAT  MA N  by  whom  the  offence  cometh  !" 

Though  some  of  your  denomination  attempt  to  jus- 
tify their  conduct  in  causing  divisions,  by  the  passage 
quoted  from  Luke  ;  yet  as  soon  as  we  urge  that  it  is 
our  duty  to  mark  those  who  cause  divisions  and  offences^ 
and  to  avoid  them  :  immediately  they  deny  that  they 
are  the  ones  who  cause  division  ;  and  affirm,  that  it  is 
the  Pedobaptists  who  cause  the  divisions,  by  having 
departed  from  gospel  order.  In  one  instance,  there- 
fore, you  own  that  you  do  make  the  divisions,  and  at- 
tempt to  Justify  your  conduct  ;  in  the  other,  you  deny 
your  making  divisions,  and  charge  the  crime  upon 
the  Pedobaptists.  If  this,  Sir,  be  strait  sailing,  what 
can  be  crooked  ?  Must  we  not.  Sir,  suppose,  that 
a  person  finds  it  very  difficult  to  justify  his  conduct, 
who  will  adopt  such  contradictory  methods  ? 

Vnnr's-    Rrn. 


22 
LETTER   IX. 

REV.    SIR, 

1  MUST  add, 

8.  \fear  to  take  ground  on  which  I  must  urge  the 
prevalence  of  my  distinguislung  sentiments  as  proof  of 
their  rectitude. 

The  absurdity  of  this  argument  I  endeavoured  to  show 
in  my  "  Impartial  Inquiries  respecting  the  progress  of 
the  Baptist  denomination.  '  But  I  find,  as  absurd  as 
it  is,  that  it  is  still  urged  by  your  brethren  ;  and  even  by 
a  Doctor  in  Divinity.  I  must  therefore  address  to  you 
a  few  observations  on  this  point. 

If  the  prevalence  of  your  peculiar  sentiments  may  be 
admitted  as /jroo/" of  their  rectitude,  it  must  be  for  this 
reason,  viz.  that  in  this  sinful  world  nothing  but  truth 
can  h^Xhns  prevalent.  If  it  be  as  common  for  error 
to  prevail  as  it  is  for  truths  then  neither  truth  nor  error 
can  be  knovvn  by  their  prevalence — But  if  it  be  your 
opinion  that  the  prevalence  of  a  sentiment  is  an  evi- 
dence of  its  truths  to  act  consistently  with  this  opinion, 
you  must  admit  into  your  system  of  truth  evey  senti- 
ment that  is /?r6'i^fl/c«if  in  the  world.  And  must  not 
this,  Sir,  be  a  very  complex  and  heterogeneous  sys- 
tem ? 

If  you  believe  that  the  prevalence  of  your  peculiar 
sentiments  is  an  evidence  that  they  are  according  to 
truth,  why  do  you  not  admit  the  same  plea  in  favor  of 
the  peculiar  sentiments  of  the  Methodists,  and  incor- 
porate their  sentiments  into  your  system  ?  The  Me- 
thodists urge  the  same  plea  in  their  favor,  and  with  as 
much  reason  as  it  is  urged  by  your  denomination. 

Besides,  Sir,  if  it  be  your  serious  belief  that  the 
prevalence  of  your  sentiments  is  an  evidence  of  their 
truths  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  you  dare  to  reject  and 
ridicule  the  sentiments  of  the  Pedobaptists  ?  Their 
sentiments  have  been,  and  still  are  vastly  more  preva- 
lent than  yours. 

Must  it  not.  Sir,  be  true,  that  in  urging  this  plea,  the 
leaders  of  your  denomination  have  been  remarkahly 
deluded,  or  verily  dishonest  ?  Has  not  this  plea  often 


25  . 

been  urged  by  those  who  saw  its  fallacy,  merely  for 
the  sake  of  making  proselytes  ?  And  have  you  not,  Sir, 
reason  to  fear  that  thousands  have  been  persuaded  to 
become  Baptists  by  this  fallacious  and  delusive  dream? 
I  dare  not.  Sir,  venture  my  soul  on  such  ground. 

Perhaps,  Sir,  I  might  without  great  impropriety, 
suggest  to  you  that  I  fear  to  take  ground  on  which  I 
should  be  led  to  imagine  that  all  the  world  will  soon  be 
Baptists,  because  that  myself  and  a  few  other  noted 
characters  have  recently  adopted  the  Baptist  scheme. 
But  this  I  shall  not  urge,  because  I  have  a  much  more 
serious  ground  of  fear  to  mention.     Hence, 

9.  I  seriously  fear.,  Sir,  to  be  in  such  a  situation^  and 
in  such  a  connection,  that  I  must  cry  "  persecution" 
under  the  pressure  of  a  yair  and  just  representation  of 
my  own  conduct,  or  the  conduct  of  my  brethren. 

In  my  *'  Impartial  Inquiries"  respecting  the  progress 
of  your  denomination,  I  very  freely  and  candidly  ad- 
mitted that,  in  some  instances,  the  imprudence  of  Pe- 
dobaptists  had  given  too  much  ground  for  the  Baptists' 
cry  of  persecution.  I  am  still  willing  to  admit  the 
same.  But  I  think  it  my  duty  to  declare  it  to  you,  as 
my  serious  belief,  that  your  cry  oi persecution  has  often 
been  raised  under  the  pressure  of  most  serious  stvidjusi 
representations  of  improper  conduct. 

Permit  me.  Sir,  on  this  particular  to  deal  very  plain- 
ly.  Do  not  many  preachers  of  your  denomination  ve- 
ry frequently  act  the  part  of  aggressors  and  invaders  ; 
enter  our  societies  in  an  insidious  manner,  and  tram- 
ple on  the  rights  and  the  feelings  of  Pedobaptist  Min- 
isters and  Churches  ?  Do  they  not,  as  though  they 
possessed  the  power  of  absolution^  induce  many  to  a 
violation  of  sacred  civil  contracts  and  solemn  religious 
covenants  ?  Have  they  not,  in  many  instances,  done  all 
in  their  power  to  excite  a  prejudice  in  the  minds  of  peo- 
ple against  godly  Ministers  and  humble  Christians  ? 
And  when  these  irregular,  insidious,  and  abusive  pro- 
ceedings have  been  fairly,  justly,  and  seriously  repre- 
sented by  way  of  reproof  or  warning,  have  not  many 
Baptists,  on  such  occasions,  immediately  resorted  to 
their  cry  of  "  persecution,"  to  divert  the  attention  of 


24 
people  from  the  impropriety  of  their  own  conduct,  to 
excite  a  prejudice  against  their  faithful  reprovers,  and 
to  make  proselytes  to  their  own  party  ? 

In  my  next  I  shall  give  you  an  allegorical  illustra- 
tion of  some  of  my  views.  But  if  there  be  nothing  of 
a  public  nature  to  which  it  will  apply,  the  allegory  will 
be  inexplicable  to  all  but  the  writer. 

Your's,  &c. 


LETTER    X. 

REV.    SIR, 

ACCORDING  to  promise,  I  am  now  to  give 
you  an  allegorical  illustration. 

There  was  a  man  in  the  land  of  Freedom,  whose 
name  was  Isaac.  He  was  a  good  and  upright  man, 
and  one  who  feared  God,  and  sought  his  glory.  Hav- 
ing the  requisite  qualification,  he  undertook  the  busi- 
ness of  a  shepherd.  Disdaining  all  clandestine  proceed- 
ings^ by  fair  and  honorable  means  he  obtained  a  flock  of 
more  than  three  hundred  sheep.  The  welfare  of  his 
flock  was  near  to  his  heart,  and  to  the  care  of  them  he 
devoted  his  time — and  from  his  flock  he  expected  an 
annual  support  for  himself  and  his  family. 

After  a  few  years,  Ishmael,  a  native  of  the  same 
country,  also  undertook  the  business  of  a  shepherd. 
But  instead  of  going  where  a  flock  might  be  had  by 
honorable  means,  he  cast  his  eye  on  the  flock  of  Isaac. 
And  by  observation  or  information,  he  found  that  some 
individuals  of  the  flock  seemed  to  be  uneasy  an^  in- 
clined to  ramble.  They  were  often  seen  at  a  distance 
from  the  rest  of  the  flock,  and  appeared  to  be  looking 
for  some  opening  in  the  fence,  through  which  they 
might  creep.  With  these  Ishmael  soon  began  to  famil- 
iarize himself;  and  after  a  few  days  he  made  a  breach 
in  the  fence,  and  enticed  them  to  follow  him  out  of  the 
inclosure.  He,  however,  allowed  them  frequently  to  re- 
turn and  associate  with  the  flock, in  hope  that  others  would 
be  induced  to  follow  their  example.  By  such  a  course 
of  conduct,  with  other  arts  which  he  employed,  he 
gained  a  considerable  number  of  Isaac's  sheep.     And, 


'25 
not  at  all  ashamed  of  the  course  he  had  adopted,  he 
publicly  advertised  the  number  he   had  gained,  and 
seemed  to  glory  in  his  acquisition. 

Though  Isaac  was  a  prudent  and  candid  man,  he 
was  not  destitute  of  feeling,  nor  afraid  to  bear  testimo- 
ny against  such  dishonest  and  inndious  conduct.  He 
therefore,  remonstrated  against  the  conduct  of  Ishmael, 
and  represented  it  as  dishonorable,  and  beneath  the 
dignity  of  a  Christian. 

As  soon  as  the  remonstrance  came  to  the  ears  of 
Ishmael,  he  set  up  the  cry  o^ persecution.  He  affirmed, 
that  he  was  treated  just  as  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
were  treated  :  and  seemed  to  glory  in  it,  that  he  was 
accountedworthy  to  suffer  for  righteousness  sake.  From 
the  circumstance  of  his  being  thus  persecuted,  he  un- 
dertook to  prove  that  he  was  a  humble  follower  of 
Christ,  and  that  his  principles  and  conduct  were  ac- 
cording to  the  unerring  Oracles  of  truth. 

Almost  every  thing  which  Isaac  did,  or  that  he  ne- 
glected to  do,  which  had  a  tendency  to  secure  the  rest 
of  his  flock  from  being  ensnared  by  Ishmael,  was  made 
a  ground  for  the  cry  of  persecution.  One  instance  of 
this  may  be  mentioned. 

Isaac  had  in  his  inclosure  a  fold  where  he  statedly 
fed  his  flock.  When  he  went  to  the  fold,  the  sheep 
of  their  own  accord  came  to  be  fed.  After  Ishmael 
had  obtained  a  part  of  the  flock,  and  found  that  the 
remainder  were  shy  of  him,  he,  with  professions  of 
respect  for  Isaac,  and  great  love  to  his  flock,  made  aa 
offer  of  his  service  to  go  with  Isaac  to  the  fold,  and  to 
feed  the  sheep  at  his  own  expense.  Isaac  had  discern- 
ment enough  to  see  the  object  of  this  proposal,  and 
prudence  and  firmness  enough  to  reject  it.  But  this 
rejection  of  the  proposal  of  Ishmael  was  deemed  suffi- 
cient ground  for  bitter  and  loud  complaints. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have  given  you  the  allegory  :  and  per- 
mit me  to  ask,  whether  you  ever  saxv  or  heard  any 
thing  like  the  conduct  of  Ishmael  ?  Or  do  you  need 
Joseph  or  Daniel  for  an  interpreter  ? 

I  will  not.  Sir,  make  use  of  reproachful  epithets,  but 
I  will  seriously  ask  you  what  epithets  vou  would  use 

D 


26 
to  characterize  such  a  man  as  Ishmael,  or  to  denomi- 
nate his  conduct  ?  As  capablej  Sir,  as  I  am  of  feeling 
pain,  and  as  timid  as  I  am  by  nature^  my  feelings  do 
not  revolt  so  much  at  the  thought  of  burning  at  the 
stake,  as  at  the  thought  of  following  the  example  of 
Ibhmael.  Your's,  Sec. 


LETTER    XI. 

REV.     SIR, 

IN  the  preceding  letters  I  have  exhibited  the  princi- 
ple reasons  which  have  operated  in  my  mind  to  pre- 
vent m.y  embracing  your  theory,  and  adopting  your 
practice. 

While  writing,  it  was  my  aim,  on  the  one  hand,  t» 
make  my  representations  in  so  plain  a  manner  as  to  be 
fairly  understood,  and,  on  the  other,  to  avoid  every 
degree  of  misrepresentation,  either  in  respect  to  senti- 
ment or  practice.  And,  on  a  careful  review  of  what  I 
have  written,  I  cannot  find  that  I  have,  in  any  particu- 
lar, deviated  from  my  purpose. 

But  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  in 
what  I  have  written,  which  implicates  blame  or  im- 
proper conduct,  it  was  not  meant  to  be  applied  to  all 
your  denomination  indiscriminately  ;  but  only  to  those 
who  are  chargeable  with  the  things  implied  or  represen- 
ted. For  many  of  the  Baptist  denomination  I  still  feel 
a  cxDrdial  respect,  and  view  them  as  brethren  and  sisters 
in  the  Lord.  And  indeed.  Sir,  I  am  not  without  hop6, 
that  many  of  those  whose  conduct  has  been  implicated 
as  blameable,  are  good  people,  though  led  astray  by 
party  zeal  and  prepossessiojis.  I  am.  Sir,  far  from  any 
inclination  to  denounce  you  all  as  the  eneinies  of  Christ, 
by  calling  you  "  Antichrist.^''  I  hope  I  have  so  far 
learned  Christ,  as  not  to  render  reviling  for  reviling. 

1  may  with  propriety  add,  that  it  has  been  painful  to 
me  to  have  occasion  to  imply  such  a  degree  of  blame 
in  writing  on  the  conduct  of  professed  Christians, 
Happy  should  I  have  been  to  have  had  nothing  to  op- 
pose, but  your  sentiment  on  infant  baptism.  But  im- 
proper conduct  of  an  habitual  and  public  nature,  is  as 


27 
properly  a  subject  of  animadversion  as  error  in  senti- 
ment. I  have  tlierefore  taken  the  liberty  to  suggest, 
for  your  consideration  some  things,  which,  in^my  view, 
are  highly  improper,  and  which  ought  to  be  corrected. 
But  if,  in  so  doing,  I  have  indulged  and  manifested  any 
bitterness  of  Spirit^  in  this  I  am  inexcusable,  and  for 
tliis  am  justly  reprehensible.  But,  Sir,  1  think  you 
will  be  sensible,  after  proper  attention,  that  I  have  re- 
stricted my  animadversions  to  such  conduct  as  is  gen- 
erally known,  and  capable  of  the  most  substantial  and 
abundant  proof. 

But  should  I  be  convinced  by  you,  or  any  other  per- 
son,  that  I  am  chargeable  with  having  injuriously  mis- 
represented the  views,  or  the  practice,  of  any  writer, 
or  preacher,  or  others  of  your  denomination,  you  may 
be  assured  that  I  shall  frankly  retract  it,  if  my  life  should 
be  spared  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  ;  and  that,  I 
shall  wot  prove  myself  a  false  witness  by  republish- 
ing any  misrepresentations  '^hitv  I  am  convinced  that 
they  arejalse  and  injurious. 

In  respect  to  the  allegory  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  it 
may  be  proper  for  me  to  observe,  that  it  was  not  in- 
tended to  characterize  the  two  denominations  as  such, 
nor  all  the  Ministers  of  either  denomination.  It  was 
intended  to  be  applied  only  where  it  may  be  found  ap- 
plicable. The  name  of  Ishm.ael  was  not  introduced  for 
the  purpose  of  reproach.  I  am  not  aware  that  any  evi- 
dence exists  by  which  it  can  be  proved  that  Ishmael, 
the  son  of  Abraham,  was  not  a  godly  man.  But  as  you 
reject  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  which  was 
established  with  Isaac,  while  we  adhere  to  that  cove- 
nant as  implying  all  the  groimds  of  our  hope,  I  will 
not  deny  that  this  circumstance  had  influence  with  me 
in  adopting  the  names  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael.  Nor  will 
I  pretend,  that,  while  writing  the  allegory,  I  was  so 
perfectly  blind  as  not  to  discern  some  glimmerings  of 
correspondence  between  the  conduct  I  was  describing, 
and  the  character  of  Ishmael  as  given  by  the  spirit  of 
prophecy. 

But  vv^hat.  Sir,  have  I  reason  to  expect   from  your 
people   in  return  for  these  just  and  dispassionate  re- 


28 
presentations  ?  If  I  am  to  form  my  .ejipectations  on 
the  ground  of  past  experience  and  careful  observation, 
must  I  not  expect  to  be  loaded  with  reproach  and  vili- 
fied as  2i  persecutor  ?  and  that  some,  who  profess  to  be 
children  that  rvill  not  lie,  will  make  most  abusive  mis- 
representations of  what  I  have  written  ?  Such  treat- 
ment I  do  not  expect  from  all  of  your  denomination 
who  may  read  these  Letters.  Some  of  them  I  have 
no  doubt  will  acknowledge  the  representations  to  be  la- 
mentably just  and  important.  But  I  fear  that  many 
others  will  adopt  a  very  different  course.  And  this, 
Sir,  I  fear  far  less  on  my  own  account  than  on  theirs. 
I  shall  probably  soon  be  out  of  the  reach  of  benefit 
from  applause,  or  of  injui'y  from  reviling.  But,  Sir, 
it  is  a  serious  thing  to  despise  reproof.  For  we  have 
explicit  warrant  to  say  that  "  He  that  hateth  reproof 
shall  die.'' 

That  the  spirit  of  reviling  has  been  too  much  indul- 
ged by  both  denominations,  I  have  no  inclination  to 
deny.  It  is  a  sin,  which,  at  the  present  day,  greatly 
abounds  in  our  land ;  and,  perhaps,  more  than  any 
other  vice,  threatens  the  ruin  of  our  nation.  It  appears 
to  be  a  sin  which  very  easily  besets  almost  all  classes 
of  people.  It  is  a  sin  which  is  generally  concomi- 
tant with  all  disputes  or  controversies,  whether  civil, 
political,  or  religious.  There  are,  however,  but  few 
vices  more  frequently  and  more  decidedly  spoken 
against  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  serious,  dispassionate,  and  just  representations 
of  blameable  conduct,  of  a  public  nature,  spoken  or 
written  by  way  of  reproof  to  the  guilty,  and  tvarning  to 
others,  do  not  properly  fall  under  the  denomination  of 
reviling  or  slander  ;  though,  by  those  who  cannot 
bear  to  be  reproved,  they  are  often  thus  denominated. 

Nothing,  perhaps,  is  more  direct  evidence  of  a  sel- 
fish heart,  or  a  party  spirit,  or  unwillingness  to  come 
to  the  light,  than  for  a  person,  when  candidly  and  seri- 
ously reproved,  to  denominate  such  reproof,  railing  or 
shnder.  Every  humble  Christian  is  willing  to  come 
to  the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  reproved.  He  is 
v/iUing  to  be  told  his  fi^ults,  and  to  have  the  faults,  of 


29 
.  his  brethren  laid  fairly  before  them.  He  will  not,  wHn 
reproved,  immediately  fly  into  a  passion,  nor  resort  to 
the  practice  of  reviling,  nor  to  the  cry  of  persecution. 
But  he  will  enter  into  a  serious  inquiry  respecting  the 
justness  of  the  reproof.  So  far  as.  he  finds  himself 
guilty,  he  will  humble  himself,  confess  his  faults,  and 
amend  his  ways  ;  and  he  will  use  his  influence  to  have 
his  brethren  receive  and  treat  the  reproof  in  a  Christian 
manner.  For  a  person,  when  justly  and  solemnly 
reproved,  to  attempt  to  excite  a  hue-and-cry^  against 
the  reprover,  may  be  considered  as  both  an  evidence  of 
guilt  and  a  proof  oi  impenitency. 

Permit  me,  Sir,  to  entreat  you  to  receive  what  I 
have  written,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  evince  that  I 
have  rebuked  a  wise  7nan,  and  not  to  evince  that  I 
have  reproved  a  scorner.  And  you  have  my  full  con- 
sent to  use  the  same  freedom  which  I  have  indulged, 
to  represent  the  faults  of  the  denomination  to  which  I 
belong  ;  that  is,  any  faults  which  are  equally  common, 
and  of  a  public  nature.  It  is  very  probable  that  I  may- 
be, in  a  degree,  blinded  as  to  my  own  faults,  and  the 
faults  of  those  with  whom  I  am  connected.  But  I 
hope.  Sir,  that  I  can,  with  some  sincerity  say,  "  Let  the 
righteous  smite  me,  it  shall  be  a  kindness  ;  and  let  hirn 
reprove  me,  it  shall  be  an  excellent  oil  which  shall  not 
break  my  head  :  for  yet  my  prayer  also  shall  be  in 
their  calamities." 

But  when  I  consider  that  some,  for  whom  I  have  had 
an  effectionate  regard,  have  come  forward,  and,  in  th^ 
heat  of  their  zeal,  have  denounced  the  w^hole  Pedobap- 
tist  church,  in  all  ages,  as  belonging  to  "  J?itichristy" 
I  cannot  be  amazed  at  the  blinding  influence  of  part^ 
prejudice  ;  nor  can  I  but  entertain  Si  jealousy  of  my  own 
heart,  and  a  fear  that  something  of  this  blinding  na- 
ture has  had  undue  influence  in  dictating  what  I  have 
written.  Should  this  be  found  to  be  true,  I  shall  have 
deep  cause  of  humiliation  before  God  and  man.  It 
behoves  me  to  look  to  Him  who  knoweth  all  things,^ 
and  to  say,  "  Search  me,  O  God,  and  know  my  heart;, 
try  me,  and  know  my  thoughts  :"  and  if  there  be  any 
dfthis  blinding  leaven  wuthin   liie,    "  purge  me  an^ 


30 
make  me  clean." — -Save  me  from  whatever  may  wound 
thy  cause,  injure  thy  friends,  or  dishonor  thy  name  ; 
and  cause  me  to  do  unto  others  only  as  I  would  that 
they  should  do  unto  me. 

Now,  dear  Sir,  with,  as  I  hope,  real  and  fervent  de- 
sires for  your  best  good  ;  for  the  peace  and  prosperity 
of  Zion  ;  for  more  real  and  apparent  union  among  all  the 
members  of  Christ's  body  ;  and  with  assured  expecta- 
tion of  meeting  you  and  all  the  Baptist  denomination 
at  the  tribunal  of  God,  I  bid  you  a  solemn  and  effcc- 
tionate  farewell.  NOAH  WORCESTER. 

(From  the  Massachusetts  Missionafy  Magazine. J 

A  SERIOUS  QUESTION 

PROPOSED  IN  A  SERIOUS  MANNER. 
To  the  Editors — Gentlemen y 
DIVINE  Providence  has  cast  my  lot  in  a  place 
where  I  am  surrounded  with  people  who  call  them- 
selves Baptists.  By  the  constant  and  pressing  solicita- 
tion of  these  people,  several  of  whom  are  my  particu- 
lar acquaintances  and  friends,  I  was  prevailed  on  to 
attend  their  meetings.  At  first  I  was  not  remarkably 
pleased,  neither  was  I  displeased.  The  preacher  ap- 
peared to  be  a  good  sort  of  man,  and  his  preaching, 
though  not  searching  and  instructive,  had  the  effect  to 
catch  the  attention,  to  please  the  fancy,  and  to  excite 
the  passions.  I  did  not  forsake  my  own  meeting  ;  yet 
I  continued  to  go,  from  time  to  time,  on  conference 
and  lecture  occasions,  and  sometimes  on  the  Sabbath, 
■with  my  Baptist  friends.  They  were  exceedingly  grat- 
ified, expressed  great  friendship  and  love,  and  almost 
overwhelmed  me  with  their  attentions.  My  mind  was 
considerably  carried  away.  I  began  to  think  there 
were  no  people  so  good  as  the  Baptists  ;  at  least  that 
there  were  none  who  had  so  much  zeal  and  so  much 
love.  My  affection  for  the  church,  of  which  I  was  a 
member,  for  my  minister,  whom  I  had  esteemed  very 
highly  in  love,  and  even  for  my  God  and  Saviour,  grew 
inconstant  and  cold  ;  and,  by  degrees,  gave  place  to 
an  unaccountable  something,  vv^hich  T  cannot  better 
describe,  than  by  calling  it  a  bexvitchirig  fondness  for 


31 
the  Baptists.  I  began  even  to  prefer  light,  and  super- 
ficial, and  boisterous  addresses,  to  the  solid,  instruct- 
ive, pungent,  and  searching  preaching  which  I  had  been 
accustomed  to  hear.  And  though  I  am  now  convin- 
ced, that  the  divine  life  in  my  soul  was  then  in  a  state 
of  awful  decline,  and  that  instead  of  genuine  and  solid 
religion,  I  was  strangely  taken,  up  with  a  fantastic  zeal, 
and  the  mere  movements  of  natural  sympathy  ;  yet  at 
the  time,  I  really  imagined  that  I  was  in  a  very  good 
way,  and  had  great  religious  enjoyment.  In  a  w^ord, 
I  seem  to  have  been  in  a  state  of  enchantment.  I  could 
not  endure  a  word  said  against  the  Baptist  way,  and 
Gould  hardly  rest  unless  I  was  with  them. 

But  at  length  the  enchantment  was  dissolved.  It 
pleased  the  Lord,  by  means  which  I  need  not  relate,  to 
av/aken  me  to  a  sense  of  my  situation.  I  was  brought, 
I  think,  to  see  that  I  had  been  awfully  deluded  and  led 
astray.  Every  thing  now  appeared  in  a  dift'erent  light. 
Though  I  still  hoped  that  there  was  some  true  religion 
among  the  Baptists,  I  was,  however,  convinced,  that  a 
great  share  of  their  love  and  zeal  was  merely  the  eifu- 
sions  and  fervour  of  party  ;  and  their  assiduous  atten- 
tions to  me  I  could  view  in  no  other  light,  than,  as  at- 
tempts to  draw  me  into  a  violation,  and  even  a  re- 
nouncement of  my  solemn  vows.  What  I  had  for  a 
while  so  much  admired  among  them,  instead  of  lead- 
ing to  those  views  of  the  holy  character  of  God,  and  of 
the  deep  depravity  of  the  heart,  which  are  necessary  to 
preserve  that  humility  and  godly  fear,  without  which 
religion  becomes  a  vain  and  empty  shew,  I  found  had 
only  a  tendency  to  keep  the  mind  in  a  light  and  flighty 
state.  I,  therefore,  thought  it  my  duty  immediately  to 
alter  my  course. 

I  reasoned  with  myself  thus  :  Did  there  exist  a  so- 
ciety of  people,  who  openly  reprobated  the  marriage 
covenant  as  generally  holden,  and  inculcated  the  doct- 
rine that  all  matrimonial  relations  and  vows,  out  of 
their  own  particular  connection,  were  wrong,  and  in- 
stead of  being  sacredly  observed,  ought  to  be  utterly 
renounced ;  and  who,  accordingly,  used  their  endea- 
vours to  seduce  husband  from  wife,  and  wifef  rom  hus- 
band, to  break  up  families,  and  to  cast  helpless  chil- 


dren,  without  father  and  without  mother,  upon   the 
world  :  should  I  do  right  to  seek  the  company  of  those 
people  ?  Should  I  act  the  part  of  "  a  chaste  keeper  at 
home,''  or  of  a  discreet  and  faithful  wife,  were  I  stated- 
ly to  go  with  them  to  their  places  of  resort,  to  receive 
their  assiduous  attentions,  and  listen  to  their  seductive 
solicitations?  Should  I  not  rather,  in  such  a  case,  acta 
part  exceedingly  imprudent,  give  reason  for  my  fidelity 
to  be  suspected,  and  most  criminally  expose  myself  to' 
temptation  and  seduction  ?    But  is  not  my  covenant 
with  God  and  his  people  of  a  nature,  as  sacred  and  as' 
little  to  be  trifled  with,  as  the  marriage  covenant  ?    Can 
I  consistently  go  with  a  people  who  openly  deny  this 
covenant,  who  propagate  the  doctrine  that  the  religious 
vows  which  are  made,  and  the  religious  relations  which' 
are  formed  out  of  their  own  particular  connection,  are 
not  to  be  sacredly  observed,  but  ought  to  be  utterly  re- 
nounced ;  and  who    use   their   endeavours    to   draw 
away  our  professors  from  their  solemn  engagements, 
to  break  up  our  churches,  and  to  cast  out  our  children, 
without  any  covenant  provision  for  them,  into  the  wide 
and  ensnaring  world  ?  On  the  whole,  the  case  appeared"^ 
to  me  exceedingly  plain.  I  was  shocked  at  my  conduct, 
and  could  not  be  sufficiently  thankful  that  I  was  brought 
lo  see  it,  in  what  I  supposed  to  be  its  true  light.    And 
I  have  since  endeavoured  to  conform  my  deportment 
to  the  views,  which  I  have  had  of  my  covenant  engage- 
ments.    But  for  this  I  have  been  severely  censured. 
My  Baptist  friends  have  utterly  forsaken  me  ;  and  even 
some  of  my  own  brothers  and  sisters  think  me  too  ri- 
gid. 

Now,  Messrs.  Editors,  if  I  am  MTong  in  this  point, 
I  wish  to  be  set  right.  And  I  am  not  alone  ;  there  are 
several  of  my  Christian  acquaintances,  who  wish  to  be 
satisfied  on  this  subject.  Permit  me,  therefore,  to  re- 
quest an  answer,  as  soon  as  convenient,  to  the  follow- 
ing question  : 

Is  it,  in  ordinary  cases,  compatible  with  Christian  fi- 
delity, for  members  of  our  churches  to  attend  the  meet- 
ings of  those,  who  utterly  deny  our  church  covenant, 
refuse  us  Christian  fellowship,  arid  labour  to  overthroAv 
our  church  state  ?  LYDIA. 


'*!  ^^/^r 


^"W'Wft^ 


osf^H^N*^ 


-p 


4^ 


"^M; 


5       ^S~     . 


i-'^^-J..,^ 


.* 


_^:-f:^'*i^ 


^';^:^ 


^^S" 


*=t:,-'.>>v^ 


-♦Sk.. 


